notin

But you did start making a big deal of this so- called 17% margin of error on page 21 of this thread. Those of us who cite WAR know the inadequacies and imperfections, but also recognize that it is valuable in spite of them. You on the other hand see these imperfections as a means to negate the entire concept. One might think someone who likes defense and thinks stats place too much emphasis on offense might spend less time disparaging the one stat that takes defense into account with offense...

You are looking way too deep into that example. The writer of the article was merely pointing out that WAR is inexact, not that it had a +/- 1.0 tolerance. You did do math, but no math was needed there. The entire point of the sentence was NOT to establish the range, but to point out that it’s an estimation and not a definitive value. WAR is an abstract and unprovable concept. So how could they establish a range and cite a 17% margin of error?

Which is the opposite of many traditional stats. For example, a pitcher with a 2.78 ERA is usually thought to be better than a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA. But the difference is those numbers equates to 5 earned runs over 200 innings. Is that really a big difference?

Nope. But I never saw the harm in giving Machado a chance. But then as Dombrowski was the guy who brought Machado to Detroit, I presume he knows a lot more about him than me, knew he was on waivers, and passed on him anyway. So it’s not like I could be too upset by it...

But getting him on a minor league deal could certainly solve a lot of that. The Sox do have good pitching depth, but don’t you think Clay could have given the Sox more than Jalen Beeks did?

Agreed. I could be dazzled to like a trade for him, but I doubt it happens...

But the other team wanted Devers. Do we still make that trade?

The article says “WAR is not meant to be a perfectly precise indicator of a players’s contribution but rather an estimate of their value to date” and goes on to say “a 6.0 WAR player might be worth 5.0 to 7.0 WAR, but it is pretty safe to say they are at least an all star level player and potentially an MVP.” That’s not the same as saying it has a 17% margin of error.

That's because those people would be stupid to look at WAR that way. In fact, simply saying the player with 4.5 fWAR is having the best season would be the simplest and probably most common and maybe even most correct way to look at it. This 17% tolerance appears to be your creation. The article you cited says a 6 fWAR player might be between 5 WAR and 7 WAR, but that doesn't mean they are even defining a range or a tolerance as much as they are trying to make a point, which is that it isn't anything specific. A big part of this is it isn't measuring anything, which really makes the notion hat it has a tolerance as useless. Now if I asked you today who was the MVP of the A's, who would you say? If you are "most people", you probably say Khris Davis. ESPN says so. Certainly an argument can be made for Davis, but my point is that Chapman deserves a look, and might be the better candidate, which is one of the values WAR provides...

I would say that leading in WAR does help Ramirez' case. Definitely. However, at the end of the season, he may not still be leading Betts. And the "most people" who vote are the BBWAA, and they as a collection appear to have varying degrees of acceptance of WAR. But there will be those who say it is too close to be a factor and those who ignore it completely in favor of traditional stats. In fact, I would not be surprised if more votes go to Khris Davis and his 2.6 fWAR over Matt Chapman and his 5.4 fWAR, simply because Davis got hot at the right time and could easily be the AL home run leader. But WAR at least puts Chapman into the argument, which a lot of the traditional stats do not necessarily do. And if you like to argue this is a game played by human beings and not by statistics, WAR does a much better job of making that the case than simply looking at who leads the league in home runs. After all, what else is putting Chapman into the argument?

I know. It's crazy how I thought of both of them as pitchers making MLB minimum wage. And which of Brian Johnson's 10 career starts established his stability, consistency and durability? We have at best a small sample size here. I think a lot of people are enamored by how he has pitched a a rookie, but he is not a young rookie. He's 10 months younger than Eovaldi, who will be a free agent after this season. Johnson overcame a lot through his long minor league career, but to simply throw accolades at him while disregarding while slamming Buchholz doesn't say much beyond sour grapes. If Buchholz' career started in another uniform and came here on a minor league deal to pitch like he has, would people be so quick to disparage him? We certainly liked Rich Hill when he was here, and his career was more of a mess than Clay's before he came to Boston...

There are a few reasons to maintain spending, regardless of the lack of cap. Two primary ones are to void paying too much money for players as they age beyond usefulness, and also to avoid penalties for drafting. Sometimes, the "right talent" won't be the right talent long enough to justify that...

Stay he course with the Pats. Sure, their run is going to end and it will probably be ugly, but true fans root for their team during those down times.

So your nightmare trade would be Devers for Buchholz...

There is no "margin of error". WAR is, was, and always meant to be an approximation, not a definitive value. That doesn't mean it isn't useful; it just means it isn't absolute. Is that really a flaw? That's like saying meteorology is flawed. I have heard the weatherman say "50% chance of rain." Well, it's either going to rain or it isn't. Should we disregard that entire field of science based on the weatherman being off by a full 50%? WAR tries to take the unimaginable task of attempting to determine the overall contribution of a player. It hs many flaws. It uses a floating reference of a replacement player. It's projections into the future are pretty laughable. But the value of WAR doesn't and wasn't meant to directly translate to wins. But it does give some overall perspective of the value of one player as opposed to many other players many of us rarely if ever get to watch. It's a tough concept to grasp because it isn't a concrete value like batting average. But then batting average is actually a pretty useless stat if you think about it. I mean, the definition of a "hit" is hardly universal. A player robbed of a home run doesn't get one, while the player who beats out the weak grounder does. but who was clearly the better hitter? Not to mention, all the players in MLB always fall into what is actually a very tight range. A .280 hitter, whom most fans think is good, only gets 4 more hits per 100 at-bats than a .240 hitter. That's maybe one hit per week. Why is the .280 hitter so revered over the .240 hitter? Especially when practically every player in the entire league will hit between .200 and .300. That small 10% range of success is so magnified by fans and sportswriters as if the differences are really of major significance. But as batting average is a very simple concept, people grasp it and it is and will likely continue to be the most cited of all offensive statistics. And even I will continue to cite it as required, for those very reasons. WAR has a few flaws, the least of which is the range. Like any value with a tolerance, the nominal value is the ideal one. For players too close within that range (which is never disclosed in the article you read, but only given as an example), it doesn't end the debate of who is better. It just adds fuel to it. You claim it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, but, really it does. For example. Khris Davis is on a home run tear and becoming a player some feel is a legitimate MVP candidate himself. But WAR says he is the fourth most significant position player on his team, behind Matt Chapman, Jed Lowrie and Marcus Semien. Whether he is really fourth or not, doesn't WAR tell you maybe his contributions beyond the home runs might not be so great? And maybe there is a better MVP candidate on that team? And looking overall at the AL, is Jose Ramirez having a better season than Mookie? As of today, WAR says he is (8.2 fWAR vs 7.7 fWAR). That doesn't guarantee him the MVP, but it certainly helps his case. And like in Oaklamd, it is just a little bit of fuel for the debate...

The sequel could be very bad. Where an aging Air Bud gets injured and the Angels have to put him down. Sort of like what they want to do with Pujols...

Would their bats be double-barreled, reminiscent of Darth Maul's light saber?

It really depends on what you can get back. If the Sox have a bigger need, they are a lot less likely to get it for Vazquez or Leon. If they need to replace Kimbrel, for example, they are more likely to get back a quality replacement for Swihart than either of the other catchers. Would you trade Swihart for, say, Blake Treinen or Brad Hand or Archie Bradley? Or if the Sox want a SP. Would you trade Swihart and, say, Devers, for deGrom? (Would the Mets?)

Just please no puns about Bogaerts...

The farm system is looking fairly decent if you want a 3B. The Sox have Chavis, who is on the cusp of MLB, although an unlikely star, and Dalbec, who is right behind him. And in the majors, they have Devers, who is actually the youngest of the three. This might be the depth Dombrowski deals from, and it might actually be Devers he moves since he is most likely to get back an impact player (assuming DD thinks the Sox need one), and the Sox can clearly win without Rafael. Or, more likely, he tries to move Chavis and/or Dalbec and the return of Devers is one the the already-in-place upgrades for 2018...

You think Sale, who will entering his age 31 season, and, by the time he reaches free agency, could easily have finished his eighth straight year with a top 6 Cy Young finish, is going to settle for a 3 year deal with the option to prove himself to get more years? Free agency is something ballplayers play their entire lives to achieve. Sale and his agent will absolutely ask for more than 3 guaranteed years. And they will want to ability to end the deal sooner, not the chance to prove he has earned anything more...

I doubt there is adequate return to be had for Vazquez. If the Sox want adequate return, Swihart is the much better trading chip. And if the Sox are ok with the Leon/Vazquez tandem next season, Swihart might even be used that way. And this time, DD might even be able to get what he wants for him...

In Oakland his role is vastly different. He's not even the set up guy. Like Rodney or not, he is in the same bullpen as Treinen, Familia, Trivino and the incredibly underrated Yusmeiro Petit. How many teams can use a player who got (almost) 40 saves last year as their fifth option in the bullpen?

All it takes is one renegade GM to give him 4 or 5 years. and someone will give him that, even if they have to include an opt out clause...

So again, what is better?